Arbitrator mocks Trump in April 1st Signpost: BLP issue?

[Kingsindian]

(Found on the WS forum)

This is an interesting archive of Auerbach's tweets. Timothy B. Lee (who asks about a fork of Wikipedia) is a tech journalist at Vox.com

[thekohser]

(Found on the WS forum)

This is an interesting archive of Auerbach's tweets. Timothy B. Lee (who asks about a fork of Wikipedia) is a tech journalist at Vox.com

Why do you think Auerbach seemed so fond of Dariusz Jemielniak, who is a member here?

[Kingsindian]

(Found on the WS forum)

This is an interesting archive of Auerbach's tweets. Timothy B. Lee (who asks about a fork of Wikipedia) is a tech journalist at Vox.com

Why do you think Auerbach seemed so fond of Dariusz Jemielniak, who is a member here?

My guess is that Auerbach knows or knows of him, since the latter once wrote an article on WP bureaucracy for Slate.

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3AVordrak:

19:51, 5 June 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Vordrak (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (clarify this block can only be appealed to ArbCom)
19:49, 5 June 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Vordrak (Ugh, I didn't delete this before? Sorry.)

This is interesting timing. Did Vordrak (mistakenly) see the admonishment of Gamaliel as vindication for what he (Vordrak) did nearly a year ago and asked to be unblocked, only to be told to speak to ArbCom instead?

My suspicions have been confirmed:

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=2009

[...] A few weeks ago, supported by an administrator, your author [Vordrak] sought to have his block from editing Wikipedia reconsidered.

After discussion with this neutral administrator I said that if I was unblocked, I would write no further posts criticising Wikipedia, abide by WP:OUTING and WP:NLT. The Administrator agreed that he would post the request to the Administrator’s noticebord WP:ANI. Before doing so I was advised by a former Arbitrator who also supports my request to ask Floquenbeam, the administrator who blocked me, to reconsider.

The latter move was a mistake. So keen is Floquenbeam (himself an arbitrator who resigned after swearing at editors in his talkpage) on my ban that he went to ArbCom with it. ArbCom took a secret decision to require any appeal of mine to go to the committee. I only learned of this when the neutral administrator confirmed it.

Vordrak opportunistically sought to become unbanned sometime after Gamaliel's May 22nd resignation from ArbCom.

And the sysop that was helping Vordrak was apparently "The Wordsmith":

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/4slbpl/bias_admin_gamaliel_called_out_by_fellow_admins/d5aekjs

Yes. The Wordsmith is a standup guy. He offered a neutral public review at AN/I of my block provided I promised to abide by WP:OUTING rules but Floquenbeam had ArbCom pass a secret vote to stop him.

[Starke Hathaway]

Vordrak is a massive tool-- no argument there-- but so what if Wordsmith offered to post his block appeal to ANI?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Vordrak is a massive tool-- no argument there-- but so what if Wordsmith offered to post his block appeal to ANI?

Well, I merely noted it it down here; I posted the criticism at Wikipedia Sucks instead:

http://wikipediasucks.boards.net/thread/183/wikipediocracy-arbcom-slate-wikipedia-right?page=1&scrollTo=3427

Wikipedia Sucks is better equipped for this sort of criticism.

[Vigilant]

The ongoing Vordrak beatdown at kiwifarms.
linkhttps://kiwifar.ms/threads/vordrak-samu ... st-1595307[/link]

[thekohser]

Jimmy Wales ("founder" of Wikipedia) is on board (and out of place) with a letter from "technology sector leaders" who are formally opposing Donald Trump.

[Jimbo Jambo]

Jimmy Wales ("founder" of Wikipedia) is on board (and out of place) with a letter from "technology sector leaders" who are formally opposing Donald Trump.

Formally opposing - sounds serious.

The latest Rasmussen Reports... finds Trump with 44% support to Clinton’s 37%.

[Randy from Boise]

Jimmy Wales ("founder" of Wikipedia) is on board (and out of place) with a letter from "technology sector leaders" who are formally opposing Donald Trump.

Formally opposing - sounds serious.

The latest Rasmussen Reports... finds Trump with 44% support to Clinton’s 37%.

Rasmussen is as reliable as Fox News.

RfB

[Stan Dixon]

Jimmy Wales ("founder" of Wikipedia) is on board (and out of place) with a letter from "technology sector leaders" who are formally opposing Donald Trump.

Perhaps Trump isn't such a bad candidate for the USA Presidency then? Wales was opposed to BREXIT also!

[thekohser]

Jimmy Wales ("founder" of Wikipedia) is on board (and out of place) with a letter from "technology sector leaders" who are formally opposing Donald Trump.

Perhaps Trump isn't such a bad candidate for the USA Presidency then? Wales was opposed to BREXIT also!

Sadly, that's one thought that came to my mind. Jimbo is a great contra-indicator of what a wise person should do, in most cases.

[Poetlister]

Wales was opposed to BREXIT also!

A stopped clock is correct twice a day. You just can't be sure when it's correct. Like Wikipedia articles, really.

[Vigilant]

This shit just doesn't end.

http://archive.is/oWfo9

[tarantino]

Gamaliel will be the communications chair (whatever that means) for WikiConference North America 2016, to be held in San Diego. This is contingent on the organizers extracting $50k from the foundation.

[arkon]

Gamaliel will be the communications chair (whatever that means) for WikiConference North America 2016, to be held in San Diego. This is contingent on the organizers extracting $50k from the foundation.

Well that seems like a bad idea.

[thekohser]

Gamaliel will be the communications chair (whatever that means) for WikiConference North America 2016, to be held in San Diego. This is contingent on the organizers extracting $50k from the foundation.

Well that seems like a bad idea.

If you want to hear deathly quiet, go here and listen:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=15786645

[Cedric]

Gamaliel will be the communications chair (whatever that means) for WikiConference North America 2016, to be held in San Diego. This is contingent on the organizers extracting $50k from the foundation.

Well that seems like a bad idea.

What? Having Gameylilt in charge of "communications"? Or is it spending $50K on this particular bit of grift?

[arkon]

Gamaliel will be the communications chair (whatever that means) for WikiConference North America 2016, to be held in San Diego. This is contingent on the organizers extracting $50k from the foundation.

Well that seems like a bad idea.

What? Having Gameylilt in charge of "communications"? Or is it spending $50K on this particular bit of grift?

The 50k bit hurts no matter what, but I don't know if that's a drop in the bucket for their wastefulness or not. I'm better at communications, and that's a sad thing.

[Earthy Astringent]

Gamaliel will be the communications chair (whatever that means) for WikiConference North America 2016, to be held in San Diego. This is contingent on the organizers extracting $50k from the foundation.

Well that seems like a bad idea.

What? Having Gameylilt in charge of "communications"? Or is it spending $50K on this particular bit of grift?

50k and TJ is sooooo close.

[Kingsindian]

Auerbach has asked ArbCom about Gamaliel's status directly now.

[Vigilant]

[DHeyward]

Auerbach has asked ArbCom about Gamaliel's status directly now.

And they are being a bit obtuse as it is obvious the communication was to the arbcom mailing list that included his other resignations. Weller wasn't the go-between. Does this mean he can have backsies on his arbcom resignation and his GG topic ban?

[DHeyward]

Gamaliel will be the communications chair (whatever that means) for WikiConference North America 2016, to be held in San Diego. This is contingent on the organizers extracting $50k from the foundation.

Well that seems like a bad idea.

If you want to hear deathly quiet, go here and listen:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=15786645

Too soon? WikiConference North America 2016 (T-H-L)

[arkon]

DrMies is a member here, yes? I know him as generally reasonable and thoughtful, though wrong on things occasionally like we all are. Why the hell can't you answer a simple question, or why the hell can't you shut up if you can't answer the question?

[Midsize Jake]

DrMies is a member here, yes?

No; someone claiming to be him did register an account recently, but User:Drmies disavowed the account and he/she/it was quickly "shown the door."

[arkon]

Ahh, well dang. Kelapstick responded (as an aside, that's twice where they have responded where other arb's went quiet, good on them), so it seems at least the arbcom as a whole wasn't told Gam was resigning. So it's up to Doug to enlighten further.

The harassment angle is interesting to me at this point though.

[Jimbo Jambo]

Summarizing the dysfunctional ethos of every wiki noticeboard:

It's a shame, isn't it? So many Wikipedians seem compelled to inject themselves into what should be a simple matter of asking a question and getting an answer. That's why I mailed arbcom-l several times before asking publicly, and a lot of hassle could have been saved if they had replied. But as you well know, discussions descending into tit-for-tat serves Wikipedia well, as it allows you to personalize disputes and discredit critics through false equivalences. I'm VERY familiar with that tactic by now. Auerbachkeller (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Two straightforward questions (even numbered for the less focused), 50 odd responses, and still nothing resembling an answer.

[Vigilant]

Nothing says professionalism like this...

See, you come here asking what his status was, because there is allegedly some big conspiracy about grants, and now you go and change the question, asking if the beleif that he resigned led to some change in opinion/remedy of the case. I have a hard time assuming good faith and believing that this is anything other than a grudge-fueled attempt to reopen a closed case, so consider this my last posting on the matter. It's a lovely summer day, and I should get back to shit that matters, like enjoying my vacation, rather than reading about your petty disputes. I personally have seen enough ANI flu to not be fooled by someone "retiring" mid-discussion. So we are crystal clear, Gamaliel's active status on the project, and at WMDC did not influence how I voted on the case. I don't even know what WMDC does, so one's status on the board matters not to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disband ARBCOM and replace them with experienced community manager employees.

There is nothing but heartache and drama ahead.

[Jimbo Jambo]

Nothing says professionalism like this...

See, you come here asking what his status was, because there is allegedly some big conspiracy about grants, and now you go and change the question, asking if the beleif that he resigned led to some change in opinion/remedy of the case. I have a hard time assuming good faith and believing that this is anything other than a grudge-fueled attempt to reopen a closed case, so consider this my last posting on the matter. It's a lovely summer day, and I should get back to shit that matters, like enjoying my vacation, rather than reading about your petty disputes. I personally have seen enough ANI flu to not be fooled by someone "retiring" mid-discussion. So we are crystal clear, Gamaliel's active status on the project, and at WMDC did not influence how I voted on the case. I don't even know what WMDC does, so one's status on the board matters not to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Disband ARBCOM and replace them with experienced community manager employees.

There is nothing but heartache and drama ahead.

I don't know whether they believe this resembles a rational thought process or simply accept it as necessary theater.

The answer likely depends on the editor but I'd like some ballpark percentages.

[tarantino]

Nothing says professionalism like this...

Or a supposedly native English speaker repeatedly spelling board as "bord".

[Starke Hathaway]

My favorite part was where they hassled Auerbach for not asking the question on Weller's talk page, and then when Auerbach did so they hassled him for asking the question on Weller's talk page.

Oh, and of course we've got to gut his article.

[Kingsindian]

My favorite part was where they hassled Auerbach for not asking the question on Weller's talk page, and then when Auerbach did so they hassled him for asking the question on Weller's talk page.

Oh, and of course we've got to gut his article.

Auerbach seems to me rather paranoid on Twitter. He has presented no evidence that people are out to get him on Wikipedia. As I demonstrated earlier, people actually bent over backwards to keep his article. Many better articles have been rejected as not passing GNG.

As to the incident. Drmies removed some material on July 31. Auerbach sent his email on July 1. There is no explanation provided for the time gap.

As for the actual content: Drmies' removal was correct. One does not arbitrarily list writings by some journalist, who has written probably hundreds of articles in his career. For one particular article, I found some secondary coverage, so I added it back.

Of course, just because Auerbach is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't scheming to get him.

[Randy from Boise]

My favorite part was where they hassled Auerbach for not asking the question on Weller's talk page, and then when Auerbach did so they hassled him for asking the question on Weller's talk page.

Oh, and of course we've got to gut his article.

Auerbach seems to me rather paranoid on Twitter. He has presented no evidence that people are out to get him on Wikipedia. As I demonstrated earlier, people actually bent over backwards to keep his article. Many better articles have been rejected as not passing GNG.

As to the incident. Drmies removed some material on July 31. Auerbach sent his email on July 1. There is no explanation provided for the time gap.

As for the actual content: Drmies' removal was correct. One does not arbitrarily list writings by some journalist, who has written probably hundreds of articles in his career. For one particular article, I found some secondary coverage, so I added it back.

Of course, just because Auerbach is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't scheming to get him.

For what it's worth, Drmies did a similar fish-gutting job to a list of works on a problematic BLP that I was managing. He was half-right, but he made a point of being a Maximum Dickasaurus™ doing it, which had the BLP subject ringing my telephone...

RfB

[Vigilant]

My favorite part was where they hassled Auerbach for not asking the question on Weller's talk page, and then when Auerbach did so they hassled him for asking the question on Weller's talk page.

Oh, and of course we've got to gut his article.

Auerbach seems to me rather paranoid on Twitter. He has presented no evidence that people are out to get him on Wikipedia. As I demonstrated earlier, people actually bent over backwards to keep his article. Many better articles have been rejected as not passing GNG.

As to the incident. Drmies removed some material on July 31. Auerbach sent his email on July 1. There is no explanation provided for the time gap.

As for the actual content: Drmies' removal was correct. One does not arbitrarily list writings by some journalist, who has written probably hundreds of articles in his career. For one particular article, I found some secondary coverage, so I added it back.

Of course, just because Auerbach is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't scheming to get him.

For what it's worth, Drmies did a similar fish-gutting job to a list of works on a problematic BLP that I was managing. He was half-right, but he made a point of being a Maximum Dickasaurus™ doing it, which had the BLP subject ringing my telephone...

RfB

Does anybody speculate that he happened on these articles organically?
It's vastly more likely that he follows certain people around looking for a reason to be a leaky prick on the articles they write.

[Randy from Boise]

My favorite part was where they hassled Auerbach for not asking the question on Weller's talk page, and then when Auerbach did so they hassled him for asking the question on Weller's talk page.

Oh, and of course we've got to gut his article.

Auerbach seems to me rather paranoid on Twitter. He has presented no evidence that people are out to get him on Wikipedia. As I demonstrated earlier, people actually bent over backwards to keep his article. Many better articles have been rejected as not passing GNG.

As to the incident. Drmies removed some material on July 31. Auerbach sent his email on July 1. There is no explanation provided for the time gap.

As for the actual content: Drmies' removal was correct. One does not arbitrarily list writings by some journalist, who has written probably hundreds of articles in his career. For one particular article, I found some secondary coverage, so I added it back.

Of course, just because Auerbach is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't scheming to get him.

For what it's worth, Drmies did a similar fish-gutting job to a list of works on a problematic BLP that I was managing. He was half-right, but he made a point of being a Maximum Dickasaurus™ doing it, which had the BLP subject ringing my telephone...

RfB

Does anybody speculate that he happened on these articles organically?
It's vastly more likely that he follows certain people around looking for a reason to be a leaky prick on the articles they write.

I actually think he was stalking the subject (widely known Wikipedia critic Edwin Black) rather than me. I didn't know Drmies from Adam at the time, I had to spend time figuring out who this unknown aggressive editor even was...

RfB

[Demonology]

Drmies has jumped the shark and is now accusing Auerbach of "off-wiki harassment" for tweeting about Drmies' wiki actions. Oversight was also used on Auerbach's talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Twitter.21
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

Hey, don't make me too famous: I might get too big for my britches. I hope it makes you feel good to criticize others in your Trumpy 140-character format, half-truths and all--I believe this is what you refer to as off-wiki harassment. But hey, this is America and your feelings are important. Now, your comments on that IBM/Holocaust page (did you borrow these points from Wikipediocracy?) show that you may need a refresher on how Wikipedia works. One hint: secondary sources. Reliably sourced criticism is acceptable, excessive detail based on primary sources is not. It's all there in our policies and guidelines, and just to make sure I'll leave a welcome template with some useful links below. Oh, I see now that I made a comment on this very talk page a few years ago, a very friendly one, I think--does that jive with what you think of me? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You are an ArbCom member and an administrator. Either haul me up on charges or please quit the bluster. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia editor before I'm any of that. If you want to discuss Wikipedia content, do it on-wiki. If you can't or won't, then it's pretty transparent what your comments are for--harassment, not article improvement. BTW, answer the question, please: didn't I at one time give you some solid advice and, in the same message, warn a user who was bothering you? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The one I see doing the harassing, is you.

Hey, I don't go around calling people bad names--what was it, "capo"? Mafia boss? And off-wiki, to an automatically sympathetic audience? No, you don't get to claim "harassment" because I left a note on your talk page. You can ask me to not respond here--that's legitimate, and I'll honor that. But if you go around talking behind people's backs you should expect that at some point someone is going to respond, to your face. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[Randy from Boise]

Drmies has jumped the shark and is now accusing Auerbach of "off-wiki harassment" for tweeting about Drmies' wiki actions. Oversight was also used on Auerbach's talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Twitter.21
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

Hey, don't make me too famous: I might get too big for my britches. I hope it makes you feel good to criticize others in your Trumpy 140-character format, half-truths and all--I believe this is what you refer to as off-wiki harassment. But hey, this is America and your feelings are important. Now, your comments on that IBM/Holocaust page (did you borrow these points from Wikipediocracy?) show that you may need a refresher on how Wikipedia works. One hint: secondary sources. Reliably sourced criticism is acceptable, excessive detail based on primary sources is not. It's all there in our policies and guidelines, and just to make sure I'll leave a welcome template with some useful links below. Oh, I see now that I made a comment on this very talk page a few years ago, a very friendly one, I think--does that jive with what you think of me? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You are an ArbCom member and an administrator. Either haul me up on charges or please quit the bluster. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia editor before I'm any of that. If you want to discuss Wikipedia content, do it on-wiki. If you can't or won't, then it's pretty transparent what your comments are for--harassment, not article improvement. BTW, answer the question, please: didn't I at one time give you some solid advice and, in the same message, warn a user who was bothering you? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The one I see doing the harassing, is you.

Hey, I don't go around calling people bad names--what was it, "capo"? Mafia boss? And off-wiki, to an automatically sympathetic audience? No, you don't get to claim "harassment" because I left a note on your talk page. You can ask me to not respond here--that's legitimate, and I'll honor that. But if you go around talking behind people's backs you should expect that at some point someone is going to respond, to your face. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that IBM and the Holocaust is Edwin Black's best known book.

RfB

[Kingsindian]

There are some books with ridiculously long plot summaries. For a monstrosity, see this version of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, which is a fairly well-known book with a rather controversial but widely discussed thesis. The enormous amount of detail was thankfully all thrown out in one fell swoop in this edit and replaced with something more sane.

[Moral Hazard]

Drmies has jumped the shark and is now accusing Auerbach of "off-wiki harassment" for tweeting about Drmies' wiki actions. Oversight was also used on Auerbach's talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Twitter.21
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

Hey, don't make me too famous: I might get too big for my britches. I hope it makes you feel good to criticize others in your Trumpy 140-character format, half-truths and all--I believe this is what you refer to as off-wiki harassment. But hey, this is America and your feelings are important. Now, your comments on that IBM/Holocaust page (did you borrow these points from Wikipediocracy?) show that you may need a refresher on how Wikipedia works. One hint: secondary sources. Reliably sourced criticism is acceptable, excessive detail based on primary sources is not. It's all there in our policies and guidelines, and just to make sure I'll leave a welcome template with some useful links below. Oh, I see now that I made a comment on this very talk page a few years ago, a very friendly one, I think--does that jive with what you think of me? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You are an ArbCom member and an administrator. Either haul me up on charges or please quit the bluster. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia editor before I'm any of that. If you want to discuss Wikipedia content, do it on-wiki. If you can't or won't, then it's pretty transparent what your comments are for--harassment, not article improvement. BTW, answer the question, please: didn't I at one time give you some solid advice and, in the same message, warn a user who was bothering you? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The one I see doing the harassing, is you.

Hey, I don't go around calling people bad names--what was it, "capo"? Mafia boss? And off-wiki, to an automatically sympathetic audience? No, you don't get to claim "harassment" because I left a note on your talk page. You can ask me to not respond here--that's legitimate, and I'll honor that. But if you go around talking behind people's backs you should expect that at some point someone is going to respond, to your face. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that IBM and the Holocaust is Edwin Black's best known book.

RfB

Drmies is not the problem. If he makes a mistake, you can talk to him, and he'll think about it, and often end up agreeing with much of what you write. He'll even reconsider after being slammed, which is more than you can say about 90% of administrators.

[Vigilant]

Drmies is just another good argument for having paid, experienced employees take over ARBCOM.

[Moral Hazard]

On Wikipediocracy (T-H-L) and other articles with contentious editing, the usual way to get control is to restrict the article to reliable sources and remove all OR (even that which may seem like exposition or obvious background). This rule likely motivates all of Drmies's editing on the article mentioned, which is a BLP, and therefore deserves even higher standards.

Remember that Auerbach's BLP can be over-run by the clique running Gamergate, very easily, and it is safest to high standards for his BLP.

I had thought that high standards for BLPs (or no BLPs, since WP lacks sufficient editors to maintain standards) was a shared guideline for Wikipediocracy, even those who want Wikipedia shut down asap.

[Quincy]

Drmies has jumped the shark and is now accusing Auerbach of "off-wiki harassment" for tweeting about Drmies' wiki actions. Oversight was also used on Auerbach's talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Twitter.21
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

Hey, don't make me too famous: I might get too big for my britches. I hope it makes you feel good to criticize others in your Trumpy 140-character format, half-truths and all--I believe this is what you refer to as off-wiki harassment. But hey, this is America and your feelings are important. Now, your comments on that IBM/Holocaust page (did you borrow these points from Wikipediocracy?) show that you may need a refresher on how Wikipedia works. One hint: secondary sources. Reliably sourced criticism is acceptable, excessive detail based on primary sources is not. It's all there in our policies and guidelines, and just to make sure I'll leave a welcome template with some useful links below. Oh, I see now that I made a comment on this very talk page a few years ago, a very friendly one, I think--does that jive with what you think of me? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You are an ArbCom member and an administrator. Either haul me up on charges or please quit the bluster. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia editor before I'm any of that. If you want to discuss Wikipedia content, do it on-wiki. If you can't or won't, then it's pretty transparent what your comments are for--harassment, not article improvement. BTW, answer the question, please: didn't I at one time give you some solid advice and, in the same message, warn a user who was bothering you? Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The one I see doing the harassing, is you.

Hey, I don't go around calling people bad names--what was it, "capo"? Mafia boss? And off-wiki, to an automatically sympathetic audience? No, you don't get to claim "harassment" because I left a note on your talk page. You can ask me to not respond here--that's legitimate, and I'll honor that. But if you go around talking behind people's backs you should expect that at some point someone is going to respond, to your face. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as Drmies is using hyperbole by claiming Auerbach's tweets are harssment, someone else could use hyperbole to claim that the bolded portion is a veiled threat.

[arkon]

Considering DrMies didn't want to respond to my questions in an Arbcom case of which I was a party, when I pinged them directly, that's a funny sentence.

[GorillaWarfare]

GorillaWarfare, you post here sometimes. Apparently, Aurbach formally complained to you about Gamalial tweeting at his employer and you replied that it was a "Twitter spat"? Is this true, did you really summarily dismiss a formal complaint about off-wiki harassment, that was submitted with evidence?

Harassment has been a serious problem for Wikipedians, especially women. If you're dismissing complaints of harassment, you're contributing to the problem rather than helping solve it.

Oops. Haven't been on this website in a while and so missed this entirely until now. FWIW if you want a quick (or even moderately timely) response from me here you'll have more success if you also email me to tell me about it (or PM me on Wikipediocracy, which sends me an email).

Regarding your question: I did not know about this tweet from Gamaliel until Auerbach mentioned it after his initial tweet to me ("I ask @molly0x57 if she endorses her colleague's behavior, and whether he speaks on behalf of Wikipedia & Wikimedia.") and after I responded to say "Please leave me out of this." There was no formal complaint to me or any group I'm involved in prior to that. Perhaps the complaint you are referring to is his subsequent tweet screenshotting Gamaliel's tweet, in which case I would question how an @mention of an arbitrator on Twitter (and an arbitrator who had previously recused from matters relating to Gamaliel) could be considered a formal complaint. This was hardly the first time Auerbach or Gamaliel have criticized one another or argued on Twitter, which is the "spat" I was referring to.

I'd appreciate you not insinuating that I'm dismissing complaints of harassment. I am purposefully not involving myself as a Committee member in this issue because of my recusal on the Gamaliel case and because of past disagreements with Auerbach. I don't think involving myself would help at all to address any harassment that may have occurred. The other arbitrators are capable of handling it if it gets to that, and I would only worsen the issue by raising what would certainly be significant (and valid) concerns about my ability to arbitrate fairly due to a conflict of interest.

[SB_Johnny]

GorillaWarfare, you post here sometimes. Apparently, Aurbach formally complained to you about Gamalial tweeting at his employer and you replied that it was a "Twitter spat"? Is this true, did you really summarily dismiss a formal complaint about off-wiki harassment, that was submitted with evidence?

Harassment has been a serious problem for Wikipedians, especially women. If you're dismissing complaints of harassment, you're contributing to the problem rather than helping solve it.

Oops. Haven't been on this website in a while and so missed this entirely until now. FWIW if you want a quick (or even moderately timely) response from me here you'll have more success if you also email me to tell me about it (or PM me on Wikipediocracy, which sends me an email).

Regarding your question: I did not know about this tweet from Gamaliel until Auerbach mentioned it after his initial tweet to me ("I ask @molly0x57 if she endorses her colleague's behavior, and whether he speaks on behalf of Wikipedia & Wikimedia.") and after I responded to say "Please leave me out of this." There was no formal complaint to me or any group I'm involved in prior to that, unless the complaint you are referring to is his subsequent tweet to me, in which case I would question how an @mention of an arbitrator on Twitter (and an arbitrator who had previously recused from matters relating to Gamaliel) could be considered a formal complaint. This was hardly the first time Auerbach or Gamaliel have criticized one another or argued on Twitter, which is the "spat" I was referring to.

I'd appreciate you not insinuating that I'm dismissing complaints of harassment. I am purposefully not involving myself as a Committee member in this issue because of my recusal on the Gamaliel case and because of past disagreements with Auerbach. I don't think involving myself would help at all to address any harassment that may have occurred. The other arbitrators are capable of handling it if it gets to that, and I would only worsen the issue by raising what would certainly be significant (and valid) concerns about my ability to arbitrate fairly due to a conflict of interest.

You don't need to recuse yourself here on Wikipediocracy.

Looks to me like both houses rightly earned their poxes, but Gamaliel is getting support from the WMF despite the clould he's under (our wheelhouse), while Auerbach is getting the shaft of silence from the WMF and your committee (also our wheelhouse). Otherwise Auerbach isn't in our wheelhouse unless he wants to join the forum and dodge the darts like we all do here.

[Vigilant]

GorillaWarfare, you post here sometimes. Apparently, Aurbach formally complained to you about Gamalial tweeting at his employer and you replied that it was a "Twitter spat"? Is this true, did you really summarily dismiss a formal complaint about off-wiki harassment, that was submitted with evidence?

Harassment has been a serious problem for Wikipedians, especially women. If you're dismissing complaints of harassment, you're contributing to the problem rather than helping solve it.

Oops. Haven't been on this website in a while and so missed this entirely until now. FWIW if you want a quick (or even moderately timely) response from me here you'll have more success if you also email me to tell me about it (or PM me on Wikipediocracy, which sends me an email).

Regarding your question: I did not know about this tweet from Gamaliel until Auerbach mentioned it after his initial tweet to me ("I ask @molly0x57 if she endorses her colleague's behavior, and whether he speaks on behalf of Wikipedia & Wikimedia.") and after I responded to say "Please leave me out of this." There was no formal complaint to me or any group I'm involved in prior to that, unless the complaint you are referring to is his subsequent tweet to me, in which case I would question how an @mention of an arbitrator on Twitter (and an arbitrator who had previously recused from matters relating to Gamaliel) could be considered a formal complaint. This was hardly the first time Auerbach or Gamaliel have criticized one another or argued on Twitter, which is the "spat" I was referring to.

I'd appreciate you not insinuating that I'm dismissing complaints of harassment. I am purposefully not involving myself as a Committee member in this issue because of my recusal on the Gamaliel case and because of past disagreements with Auerbach. I don't think involving myself would help at all to address any harassment that may have occurred. The other arbitrators are capable of handling it if it gets to that, and I would only worsen the issue by raising what would certainly be significant (and valid) concerns about my ability to arbitrate fairly due to a conflict of interest.

You don't need to recuse yourself here on Wikipediocracy.

Looks to me like both houses rightly earned their poxes, but Gamaliel is getting support from the WMF despite the clould he's under (our wheelhouse), while Auerbach is getting the shaft of silence from the WMF and your committee (also our wheelhouse). Otherwise Auerbach isn't in our wheelhouse unless he wants to join the forum and dodge the darts like we all do here.

Even worse, the resignation from WMDC was posited as part of the punishment and seems to me to have been part of the reason that we wasn't indeffed. "He's already suffered enough..." went the refrain.
If that was a ruse then you all look smaller for having been played.

[DHeyward]

GorillaWarfare, you post here sometimes. Apparently, Aurbach formally complained to you about Gamalial tweeting at his employer and you replied that it was a "Twitter spat"? Is this true, did you really summarily dismiss a formal complaint about off-wiki harassment, that was submitted with evidence?

Harassment has been a serious problem for Wikipedians, especially women. If you're dismissing complaints of harassment, you're contributing to the problem rather than helping solve it.

Oops. Haven't been on this website in a while and so missed this entirely until now. FWIW if you want a quick (or even moderately timely) response from me here you'll have more success if you also email me to tell me about it (or PM me on Wikipediocracy, which sends me an email).

Regarding your question: I did not know about this tweet from Gamaliel until Auerbach mentioned it after his initial tweet to me ("I ask @molly0x57 if she endorses her colleague's behavior, and whether he speaks on behalf of Wikipedia & Wikimedia.") and after I responded to say "Please leave me out of this." There was no formal complaint to me or any group I'm involved in prior to that, unless the complaint you are referring to is his subsequent tweet to me, in which case I would question how an @mention of an arbitrator on Twitter (and an arbitrator who had previously recused from matters relating to Gamaliel) could be considered a formal complaint. This was hardly the first time Auerbach or Gamaliel have criticized one another or argued on Twitter, which is the "spat" I was referring to.

I'd appreciate you not insinuating that I'm dismissing complaints of harassment. I am purposefully not involving myself as a Committee member in this issue because of my recusal on the Gamaliel case and because of past disagreements with Auerbach. I don't think involving myself would help at all to address any harassment that may have occurred. The other arbitrators are capable of handling it if it gets to that, and I would only worsen the issue by raising what would certainly be significant (and valid) concerns about my ability to arbitrate fairly due to a conflict of interest.

You don't need to recuse yourself here on Wikipediocracy.

Looks to me like both houses rightly earned their poxes, but Gamaliel is getting support from the WMF despite the clould he's under (our wheelhouse), while Auerbach is getting the shaft of silence from the WMF and your committee (also our wheelhouse). Otherwise Auerbach isn't in our wheelhouse unless he wants to join the forum and dodge the darts like we all do here.

Even worse, the resignation from WMDC was posited as part of the punishment and seems to me to have been part of the reason that we wasn't indeffed. "He's already suffered enough..." went the refrain.
If that was a ruse then you all look smaller for having been played.

Its a simple question: Did Doug accurately reflect communication he received or not? No arbitrator corrected him. No arbitrator requested more information. The recuses were mostly arbs that sit on the WMDC board (Molly being the sole exception). There's a huge integrity problem if arbs that heard the case can neither confirm nor deny the truth in Doug's statement and instead resort to attacking the questioner. If Doug's statement was true, WMDC must have refused to accept the resignation and shortly thereafter, that board member called for Auerbach's job. No one seems willing to acknowledge how this came about but it's very clear ArbCom knows and is obscurring how harassment is being tolerated. That cases mailing list is available to every sitting arb so either back up or call out Doug.

[Kingsindian]

Kelapstick more or less stated already on the ArbCom noticeboard that Doug Weller was mistaken. Auerbach thanked Kelapstick for the information. Doug Weller himself has said nothing so far. Obviously, he is under no obligation to reveal anything which Gamaliel emailed to the committee. Auerbach understands this, but he is digging because he is a journalist.

Doug Weller did change his vote to "oppose" on the same day when he posted the information, so conceivably this could have mattered in his calculations. In my opinion, since Gamaliel had already "retired" and resigned from ArbCom, the extra effect would have been marginal.

The rest is drama which carries on because this is Wikipedia.

In my totally speculative opinion, Gamaliel made a diva quit (or a show of doing so), but his WMDC colleagues convinced him to stay (or he changed his mind). Nothing Earth shattering and not a crime. Not even anything unethical.

[Kingsindian]

Auerbach seems to me rather paranoid on Twitter. He has presented no evidence that people are out to get him on Wikipedia. As I demonstrated earlier, people actually bent over backwards to keep his article. Many better articles have been rejected as not passing GNG.

As to the incident. Drmies removed some material on July 31. Auerbach sent his email on July 1. There is no explanation provided for the time gap.

As for the actual content: Drmies' removal was correct. One does not arbitrarily list writings by some journalist, who has written probably hundreds of articles in his career. For one particular article, I found some secondary coverage, so I added it back.

Of course, just because Auerbach is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't scheming to get him.

TDA informs me that Auerbach sent multiple emails, one of them on July 27th. So one can't of course rule out the fact that the removal was some kind of retaliation. Drmies did participate in the AfD for this article way before all this drama. And in any case the edit was correct, whatever the motivations.

Still Drmies should stay away from the article.